GAYASUDDIN Vs. JINTENDRA SINGH SARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this appeal, the judgment and order dated 4.12.2013 rendered by Civil Judge (Senior Division) is under challenge, whereby the Suit No. 72/2008 was decreed and the defendant was directed to vacate the premises in question and hand over the possession of the same within two months of such judgment. He was further directed to remove the unauthorized constructions on the same nay the payment of mesne profits @ Rs. 30/ - per day during the pendency of the suit up to the recovery of the possession. Having heard learned Senior Counsels of either parties, it is evident that having purchased the property, in question, which is described in detail in the last paragraph of the plaint, vide sale deed dated 30.6.2008, Jintendra Singh Sarna launched the suit on 7.7.2008 against the defendant Gayasuddin @ Raju for recovery of possession and dispossession of the defendant. The mandatory injunction was also sought against him to remove all his materials/constructions from the said land. That apart, mesne profit and damages were also claimed.

(2.) After the direction of a coordinate Bench of this Court for early disposal, the suit could be adjudicated, as indicated above, whereagainst this appeal has been preferred. At the outset, it is pertinent to mention that after staying the effect and operation of the judgment at the time of admission, learned Counsel of the appellant did not show any inclination, despite being asked, to receive the paper book and argue the matter, and at last the Court made the conditional order of vacating the interim stay if the appeal is not argued. Only then the matter could be heard with a further attempt to prolong the hearing by moving one application or the other and such applications were rejected by this Court on 4.1.2016 by passing the orders on merit.

(3.) Further, this fact can also be noticed that despite of orders of this Court to pay the arrears @ Rs. 2,000/ - per month w.e.f. 1.3.2015, nothing has been brought on record to show that mesne profits, as directed by learned Trial Judge as well as by this Court, has ever been paid to the plaintiff respondent. So, that way Mr. Gayasuddin has shown his defaulter attitude in compliance to the orders of this Court.